Watching the world of east London politics

Another dodgy dossier

I’ve a busy few days coming up this week, so I won’t be able to write as much as I’d like to at the moment on a new report funded by the Cordoba Foundation. I haven’t read all of it yet, but I have looked at those parts which relate to Tower Hamlets.

The report is the work of Dr Robert Lambert and Dr Jonathan Githens-Mazer. The former was head of the Met Police’s oft-criticised Muslim Contact Unit, while the other is a North American academic. Both now run the European Muslim Research Centre at Exeter University, which is funded by Islam Expo and the Cordoba Foundation.

I’ll be blunt: I don’t trust the Cordoba Foundation. I first came across them in February 2008 when I broke the story (subsequently raised in the Commons here that Tower Hamlets Council had allocated the organisation, which is headed by Anas Al-Tikriti, £38,000 of Government Preventing Violent Extremism money to fund a debate including Hizb ut-Tahrir. The debate at the London Muslim Centre was legitimate enough – whether Muslims should participate in democracy (the audience overwhelming said no) – but council leaders agreed that using money to pay HT speakers was not exactly appropriate. After I told the council about the guest list, they said they would withhold some of the £38k. After several weeks of deliberation and obvious collusion with the Foundation, the grand sum of £4,000 was kept back. I wrote about it in the East London Advertiser here:

A SURE way to gauge how sensitive, panicked and confused the Town Hall is over a story is to see how long the council’s press office takes to answer our questions.

Take the controversy surrounding the council’s £38,000 grant to the Cordoba Foundation. You’ll recall that Tower Hamlets had agreed to subsidise a series of debates and media training courses by the foundation in the name of “tackling extremism”.

When we revealed in February that this meant they’d be subsidising the appearance of Dr Abdul Wahid, the UK leader of Hizb ut- Tahrir at a debate, council leader Denise Jones promised to pull the plug.

Every week since then I’ve asked whether a final decision had been made. The council finally gave its answer on April 7. Not a very detailed response, mind you, just that it had “terminated” relations and agreed to pay some costs. I asked how much it was paying out. Answer the next day: £34,000 of the £38,000.

The remaining £4,000, the council insisted, represented the cost of the February 26 debate. So on April 8, I asked for a breakdown of the £34,000. Now, given that the council had been in negotiations with Cordoba for the best part of six weeks before settling on the figure, you’d have thought that breakdown would be ready to hand.

But no. It took Tower Hamlets two weeks to produce it. Why? My bet is that no one at the council had examined the detail and that the figure of £34,000 was little more than a back-of-the-envelope compromise calculation, rather than based on actual costs and invoices.

For example, the foundation says that a debate almost exactly identical in length and content held last October (that also included Hizb ut-Tahrir it turns out) cost £8,000; the broadcast on its partner Muslim Community Radio alone cost £3,000.

Other entries show speakers at the debate being paid £600 and a peculiar “management fee” (the foundation is run by Anas Altikriti, the boss of the Muslim Association of Britain) of £4,500.

Some £19,000 was also spent on a series of media training course aimed exclusively at helping “young Muslims” deal with the press. Experts in microeconomics always look for the incentives behind people’s actions: what motivates them.

Whereas you and I will always check our own bills and bank statements for mistakes because it’s our money, there’s no such similar pressure on council officers with other people’s cash (they would have been more interested in damage limitation).

Similarly, the Cordoba Foundation would be bound to do everything possible to secure as much of the £38,000 grant it was originally promised. It’s up to the council to ensure Cordoba has not frontloaded its costs on projects already completed.

As such, I asked the council’s press office a bunch of follow-up questions. This was their (immediate) answer: “We won’t be providing any more information or breakdowns about work with the Cordoba Foundation.”

I also asked the council’s Freedom of Information Act manager for all documents on the affair, but he’s delayed his response beyond the statutory 20 day limit too “to take advice”. I wonder why that is.

The Foundation seems to be going strong still and Dr Lambert and Dr Githens-Mazer give it high praise in their report here. It’s called, “An introduction to a ten year Europe-wide research project: Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime – UK Case Studies 2010”.

One of those case studies is Tower Hamlets and in particular the “establishment” victimisation of Mayor Lutfur Rahman. The relevant section starts on p179 of the document under the heading, “Barbarians at the gates of the City” and the sub-heading, “A case study in the subversion of liberal democracy in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets”. A footnote says that section has been written anonymously by someone who has “worked extensively in Tower Hamlets politics”.

Now, in the all the time I’ve covered Tower Hamlets politics I’ve never seen either of the good doctors at the Town Hall. And neither did they or anyone else call me or try to contact me about this report, which, given that they have cited my name and quote extensively much of my work from this blog and from my time at the East London Advertiser, is a bit lazy to say the least.

If they had have done, they might have avoided the simplified and inaccurate rewriting of history – designed, no doubt, to meet their pre-determined conclusions – that this section of their report actually is. I read it agog.

On p180:

In May 2008, Labour became aware that a new direction was needed, and a broad coalition of councillors….elected Lutfur Rahman….However, Rahman’s brand of left-wing populism represented a direct threat to the established hierarchy within the Tower Hamlets Labour party.

Left-wing populism?? Labour becoming aware that a new direction was needed?? Dear doctors, his coup against the then group leader Denise Jones was all about factionalism. In the two years before he took over – both as a member of Denise’s cabinet and also as a backbencher – Lutfur was one of Labour’s main ringleaders against Respect’s populist Left-wing policies and motions in the council chamber. In one of my columns I described him as the leader of Labour’s “giggling squad”, so vocal was his mockery.

On p183:

Britain’s Islamic Republic [the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary] played into existing narratives in the local and national media that accused the council of imposing ‘Islamic values’ on the borough. The most bizarre example concerned the proposed replacement of the dilapidated arches at either end of Brick Lane with two new structures that were described by several media sources as “hijab-shaped”. Quite apart from the fact that comparing a 10-foot steel arch to a piece of cloth requires a certain leap of imagination, the arches…were not designed by the council but by an external contractor.

I’m not sure if the anonymous author of the doctors’ report talked to the architect of the proposed arches: I did. In our background conversation before going on the record, he was extremely uncomfortable. When I pressed him, he said:

“We were briefed to design something that celebrates the demographic changes of the area. The arches were not designed to look like hijabs. Huguenot and Jewish women wore headscarves. The arches are just modern curves and they will have symbols on them reflecting the different immigrant communities. Having the Star of David on them is one option we have considered, but no decision has been made yet.”

Sometimes, it pays to read between the lines.

Pages 185-186 devote a special section to the “removal of Lutfur supporters” in the selection process for the 2010 council elections. The author says this move was designed to undermine the future mayor, thus:

In August 2009, Mohammed Shahid Ali, Salim Ullah, Shafiqul Haque and Fazlul Haque were the only sitting councillors to be de-selected at the first stage of the process to choose candidates for the 2010 local elections. The reasons given for their removal were spurious, and do not appear to correspond either to their performance as councillors or to the Labour party’s previous support for them. The only factor that they all had in common – other than being Bangladeshi Muslims – was their support for Rahman.

Unlike the men of Exeter, I witnessed these four characters at work first hand. Salim Ullah, I had a lot of respect for and I was surprised at his de-selection, but during his time as Labour chief whip he was not the most calming of influences. He was said to be a poor performer in group.

Shafiqul Haque was a die-hard supporter of Michael Keith and Denise Jones, so much so that when he was appointed to Denise’s cabinet in 2007 (to replace Rupert Bawden), one gobsmacked Lutfur supporter said of him: “You’d have to go a long way to find someone less able to lead the council on strategic development than Rupert Bawden, but true to form the leadership has managed it. What next: Mohammed Shahid Ali for mayor?”

Which brings me to Mohammed Shahid Ali. In November 2007, I reported at that month’s planning committee meeting that his eyes closed for long periods, his body jerked about and his vocal chords emitted grunting sounds that were extremely similar to snores. He had a “headache”, he said later. And like Shafiqul Haque and Salim Ullah, his English was poor.

And then there is Mr Fazlul Haque. Soon after he won a by-elction in the Weavers ward in 2008, I received a tip-off that the Tower Hamlets address he had declared on his nomination papers was not actually his home. The rumour around the council was that he lived with his wife and kids in Ilford. So one night, I parked outside his Ilford home and watched his Mercedes pull up late into the evening. He didn’t leave in the further hour I waited there. I returned the next morning and spoke to his wife. She said they were “separated” and that he had just been “visiting” her and their children.

I then drove over to his small flat in Tower Hamlets. The estate caretaker told me Haque used to live there, but he had left with his family several months ago. A startled Chinese student answered the door. She said she lived there with another student and “Fazlul – yes, Fazlul lives here as well. I sleep in the living room and Fazlul is in the bedroom.” When we returned there not long afterwards and as Haque deployed Labour’s lawyers on us, his tenant students had disappeared leaving Haque to “live” there alone. When senior Labour councillors were told about this, they were horrified.

So in each case, these four “Lutfur supporters”/”Bangladeshi Muslims” were removed because they were either just poor councillors, or just rotten, or both. UPDATE: Of course, Shafiqul Haque appealed against his removal and won to retain his council seat.

On p190 of the report:

The next major blow came in May 2009 when Rahman moved to appoint a new chief executive to the council. Given that the council had seen four chief executives in six years, this was by no means extraordinary in the context of the borough

Inaccurate and disingenuous in the extreme. Here’s the list of chief executives from 2000-2009: Christine Gilbert, 2000-2006; Martin Smith, 2007-2009. In between Christine’s departure in September 2006 and Martin’s formal appointment in April 2007, there were two “acting” chief executives. One was the social services director, Ian Wilson, who led the town hall until his retirement at the end of 2006; the other was, er, Martin Smith, who stepped up to the position from finance director after Ian left.

It is simply rubbish, therefore, to say that Martin’s forced departure by Lutfur Rahman was “by no means extraordinary”. Extraordinary is exactly what it was because it ended up costing council taxpayers like me something like £400,000 in silence money. What is also extraordinary is that the report fails utterly to mention the name of Lutfur Ali, the moonlighting assistant chief executive appointed so eagerly hired by Mr Rahman despite the mistakes on his CV and despite the doubts about his ability among professional headhunters.

In all the analyses of Labour’s treatment of Lutfur Rahman, there’s one aspect that many overlook: his ability to do the job. One senior London Assembly member (not John Biggs) told me during September’s saga: “The problem that Lutfur has is that he’s just rubbish. That’s why the party doesn’t want him as Mayor.” A bit harsh perhaps, but that’s probably nearer the truth than any mocked-up Islamophobia. I don’t believe for one second that he’s an Islamic fundamentalist, but neither am I sure he has what it takes to avoid being used by the likes of them and whoever authored the garbage in the Exeter report.

I’ve not yet read the rest of the report, but if it’s of same quality as the Tower Hamlets section, should I bother?

Share this: Facebook & Twitter

Like this:

46 Responses

These idiots also ignore the deselection of Councillor Alex Heslop. White, not a muslim and a die hard supporter of Abbas – but then putting that in the report would not fit in their conspiracy theory would it now.

The report underlines the mess of the Labour party in Tower Hamlets, which is nothing to do with ‘Islamist entryists’ and everything to do with bloody Bangladeshi politics and the intervention of anti-Muslims creeps. The left wing here has lost its way, how else could the opportunist bandwagon of Respect ever have gained foothold, albeit temporary? They are right to draw attention to the backdrop to special measures, and to expose the nonsense of attempts to link the progressive, moderate East London Muslim Centre with extremism. You don’t need to invent phoney links between Lutfur Rahman and Islamic fundamentalism when he already has grievous shortcomings aplenty. I haven’t read all the report yet, but it’s compelling stuff. I expect it will be quickly dismissed by the usual anti-Muslim bigots.

Ted already has the authors in his previous posts. The dossier is a ‘Statement’ authored by Councillor Abbas and ‘similar allegations’ were put in to the NEC by Councillor Bill Turner.
Not on this blog but via Twitter, Councillor Rachael Saunders declared:
“we would all have loved a full enquiry but only 2 days between nec meeting and close of noms.9:03 PM Oct 18th”

Thanks Ted. How was Selim Ullah a ‘poor performer in group’? Please give examples like whether he used to snore like Cllr Mohammed Shahed Ali, which is just hilarious?! This Respect defector and opportunist Cllr Ali didnt get deselected as he got the seat in Whitechapel after apparently begging Labour mafia Ken Clark (and Cllrs Josh Peck and Denise Jones) to forgive him for voting for Lutfur Rahman as leader in return for a cabinet position. That could explain why he breached the Labour whip to support Mayor Rahman because he is a plant from Respect whose leaders have instructed him and Cllr Oleeur Rahman to ‘destroy the Labour Party from within’.

You see, that’s how little conspiracies and rumours formulate in Tower Hamlets. Md Shahid Ali is not Whitechapel Cllr Shahed Ali. They couldn’t be more different. The latter is actually a decent performer at council level (although I’m still at a loss as to why he changed his mind on the proposed Gladstone Place monstrosity).

Thanks for clarifying they’re two different persons. But I don’t see how you could call someone a ‘decent performer’ when he defied English Heritage’s Grade II listing by supporting demolition of an historic EastEnd school. I guess it’s the norm to be called ‘decent’ if you’re anti-EastEnd heritage. Cllr Denise Jones and Michael Keith have upset countless EastEnders like local heritage champion Tom Ridge by almost selling off Bancroft Road History Library but completely destroying Old Bonner School and half of Spitalfields Market to name just two monumental symbols of local architecture. By that standard of ‘decent performance at council level’, I guess they are no match even for the notorious Mayor Rahman.

F4EM: It is obvious that although you are a regular contributor to this blog, your knowledge of, and attendance at council meetings must be non-existent. I woudl urge you to come along to Strategic Development Committee meetings and then make accurante accounts or judgements.

Let me clarify a couple of points you quote me within. Firstly, I spoke against, and voted against the demolition of Old Bonner School. Secondly, I had nothing to do with the Spitalfields Market affair. And just incase you’re still confused, I am Shahed Ali, not Mohammed Shahid Ali.

This is a shameful piece by Ted seeking to discredit a very important piece of research highlighting the Islamophobia that is gripping our country and affecting the lives of ordinary individuals up and down the country, fuelled in part by the right wing media.

I have family members who have experienced the horrors of Islamophobia. We must oppose all forms of hate and bigotry.

Peter Oborne presented a Dispatches programme uncovering the irresponsible and shocking media portrayal of Islam and Muslims. An excellent phamlet was also produced entitled Muslims Under Siege whih can also be downloaded from the link

Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies was also commissioned to analyse the the Representation of British Muslims in the National Print News Media from 2000-2008. See here for the shocking results

I’m so glad a decent organnisation like the Cordoba Organisation is dismantling the deep racism and islamaphobia which has hijacked democracy in Tower Hamlet and rest of the country.

Ted replies are at best a poor desperate attempt to discredit a well researched report, and it is sad someone whom themselves may come from a background where racism against them was once prevalent will try to be so hostile to real issues of racism and islamaphobia agasint Muslims. I do wonder if Ted was Muslim, and all this involved the Jewish community, and a report on anti semitism was produced, Ted will definitley not be writing or speaking as he does.

To call Lutfur incapable is laughable, the man has achieved more for this community than previous council leaders. What funny the councillors and regional people whom were against him seem to not have a clue how to solve the issues in Tower Hamlet, becuase they fail at the first hurdle, which is to understnad the challenges and grassroot informed based solutions And to think Abbas is your idea of capable replacement?? And the report dismantles the racism and islamaphobia.

Its about time Muslims stood up for themselves and took the courage to get involved and change things. Just as the Jewish communtiy bravely did for itself. Its time we all began to satart seeing each others as equal, the Brtish muslim community ahs been part of the UK communtiy for more than 100 years, and for the asian muslim community whom are now third and fourth generation, they deserve the same rights in order for society to progress and for us to be more cohesive.

The deabte hosted between Hizbuttahrir and other thinkers was neccesary, Its via free debate that ideas can be challenged, most human beings are reasonable. Free debate allows you to hear the other person and challenge your own thinking and causes people to open up and thats when real cohesion can happen.

Cllr S Ali, Thank you for stating you are who you are. I obviously you (former Respect counciller) mixed up with the ex-Labour counsillor with a similar name. However, please can you explain why Labour councillors unquestionably continue to fund ‘drain projects’ like Rich Mix Cultural Centre at our expense? So far, your party have given nearly £30m of public money. Who is responsible for that and how do you justify that?

F4EM, I fail to even attempt to justify this in my personal capacity, and certainly will refuse to take any responsibility for this funding stream. That is why I clearly made my points clear at the SDC meeting, and treid to find a better solution to the situation, which was voted down by the committee. Subsequently, I voted against the reports recomendations, and asked specifically to have my vote recorded within the minutes. To make easy reading, herewith is copy of some of the relevant section:

‘In view of the Rich Mix’s financial position and the operational issues, Councillor Shahed Ali moved an amendment to the recomendations proposing revisions to the terms of the funding. One being put to the vote, this amendment fell.’

Time for a local debate on extremist Islam it seems. Anyone interested call me on terry.fitz@live.com and I will organise. I also sue anyone who calls me Islamophobic, ask Livingstone. I challenged him and he kept his mouth shut.

If you are interested in understanding more about Islamophobia and antiMuslim prejudice this is an excellent resource that documents the sad and hurtful cases that are ever too prevalent in our society and around the world

When Ted writes about Muslims what type of news stories does he usually publish??? Does he have an unhealthy obsession with only the Muslim community? Hmmm….just a selection of his articles for you to ponder over….

Cllr S Ali. Thank you. It’s a shame your party however in the council have a different view on this drain project. They just don’t seem to get it. All the council leaders appear to have directly or indirectly supported the Rich Mix. Mayor Rahman when he was leader never spoke out either. Why do all your Labour colleagues have to support this failing project? Is it because they don’t know how to spend £30m of taxpayers’ money? Doesn’t Labour group listen to people like you or don’t they because you used to be a Respect councillor?

Does Abdul Alim actually read any of the articles he gives reference to or are they just plucked out of thin air, like his command of the English language?

It is quite clear that all of the articles are well balanced, accurately researched and incontestable. Mr Alim, if in fact he actually exists, is a bit like David Irving complaining about the massive amount of evidence for the Holocaust as being prejudiced against the Nazis.

Once again I extend my offer to him to contact me to organise a debate on the matter. As I have already appeared on a couple of Bangladeshi channels might I suggest that I use my contacts there to arrange a forum for the debate?

Unlike Terry I will not result to insults. Yes my English is not perfect, but does that not entitle me to articulate my views??? The point that Terry seems to have missed, is that there is an overwhelming number of articles written by Ted that are negative news stories concerning only the Muslim community. Why just the focus on Muslims??? Is there no wrong doing in any other community?

Furthermore, it is absolutely shameful of Terry to use the memory of the holocaust for trying to argue a point and further to seek to slander my character in the process. How unprincipled. As for hiding behind psuedonames I’m sure “Billericaydicky” could teach us a thing or two.

[…] drags in Ted Joery to help him out, As Ted Jeory, former deputy editor of the local newspaper, points out, this is a blatant rewriting of history. Jeory covered the council closely and often saw Lutfur in […]

angry atheist, you’re deluded in your thinking and out of context interpretation. Just ask yourself if the Koran instructed Muslims to kill all non muslims t none of our expats would be alive working in their lands and there certainly wouldn’t have been any non Muslims living in predominantly Muslim countries. People hosting and entertaining this line of twisted interpretation suffer from deep insecurity of a very personal nature. The same applies to any Muslims professing to be the target of all non Muslims or the West in general. All you Islamophobes, Christianphobes and Jewphobes, get over your bloody insecurity or lock yourself up in a celler somewhere so you can’t see no one nor hear no one! Euthanasia always an option if you need medical advice…

Islamaphobia is like anti semitism, where as the latter has dids in recent decade former is alive. Evidence shows 70% of Mainstream news on Muslims is Muslims as threatening, hostile and against Brtisih values. If this level of Muslim bashing (70%) was exercised aginst, Jews, Homosexuals or other minority groups to that extent, it will have created an outcry but Muslim bashing has become acceptable. Lutfur Rahmans case shows how deep this poison is, we in Europe have overcome the disease of homophobia, and deep anti semitism, but unfortunately havent managed to get rid of our prejudice, and have now found a new victim The Muslims.

The problem is not others its us. Unless the racism ends, other will continue to feel like others, outcasts. To target 95% of the population because of the antics of 2% of the popualtion whom, may i remind you came out of our secular insitutions, infected by institutional racism and islamaphobia long before 911.

May i remind you of Theodore Herzels words, man driven to leave Europe, land he grew up in and called home because of racism, becuase of what we in Europe did to him and the Jews. We need to learn and not treat Muslims in the same way or we are truly going back to the dark days.

Extracts from Theodore Herzl, Father of modern Political Zionism, which led to Israel.

“I consider the Jewish question neither a social nor a religious one, even though it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, and to solve it we must first of all establish it as an international political problem to be discussed and settled by the civilized nations of the world in council.

We are a people — one people.

We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. . .”

“Oppression and persecution cannot exterminate us. No nation on earth has endured such struggles and sufferings as we have. Jew-baiting has merely winnowed out our weaklings; the strong among us defiantly return to their own whenever persecution breaks out. . .”

“Wherever we remain politically secure for any length of time, we assimilate. I think this is not praiseworthy. . .”

“Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland. . .”

“Let me repeat once more my opening words: The Jews who will it shall achieve their State. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and in our own homes peacefully die. The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind.” [22]

His last literary work, Altneuland (in English: The Old New Land, 1902), is a novel devoted to Zionism. Herzl occupied his free time for three years in writing what he believed might be accomplished by 1923. It is less a novel, though the form is that of romance, than a serious forecasting of what could be done within one generation. The keynotes of the story are the love for Zion, the insistence upon the fact that the changes in life suggested are not utopian, but are to be brought about simply by grouping all the best efforts and ideals of every race and nation; and each such effort is quoted and referred to in such a manner as to show that Altneuland, though blossoming through the skill of the Jew, will in reality be the product of the benevolent efforts of all the members of the human family.

Herzl envisioned a Jewish state which combined both a modern Jewish culture with the best of the European heritage. Thus a Palace of Peace would be built in Jerusalem, arbitrating international disputes, and at the same time the Temple would be rebuilt on modern principles. Herzl did not envision the Jewish inhabitants of the state being religious, but there would be much respect for religion in the public sphere. He also assumed that many languages would be spoken, but Hebrew would not be the main tongue. Proponents of a Jewish cultural rebirth, such as Ahad Ha’am were critical of Altneuland.

In Altneuland, Herzl did not foresee any conflict between Jews and Arabs. One of the main characters in Altneuland is a Haifa engineer, Reshid Bey, who is one of the leaders of the “New Society”, is very grateful to his Jewish neighbors for improving the economic condition of Palestine and sees no cause for conflict. All non-Jews have equal rights, and an attempt by a fanatical rabbi to disenfranchise the non-Jewish citizens of their rights fails in the election which is the center of the main political plot of the novel.[23] Herzl also envisioned the future Jewish state to be a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, with a developed welfare program and public ownership of the main natural resources and industry, agriculture and even trade organized on a cooperative basis. He called this mixed economic model “Mutualism”, a term derived from French utopian socialist thinking. Women would have equal voting rights – as they did have in the Zionist movement from the Second Zionist Congress onwards.

In Altneuland, Herzl outlined his vision for a new Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Herzl summed up his vision for an open society:

“It is founded on the ideas which are a common product of all civilized nations… It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples. … What we own we owe to the preparatory work of other peoples. Therefore, we have to repay our debt. There is only one way to do it, the highest tolerance. Our motto must therefore be, now and ever: ‘Man, you are my brother.’” (Quoted in “Zion & the Jewish National Idea”, in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, 1970 PB, p.185)

In his novel, Herzl wrote about an electoral campaign in the new state. He directed his wrath against the nationalist party which wished to make the Jews a privileged class in Palestine. Herzl regarded that as a betrayal of Zion, for Zion was identical to him with humanitarianism and tolerance – that this was true in politics as well as in religion. Herzl wrote:

“Matters of faith were once and for all excluded from public influence. … Whether anyone sought religious devotion in the synagogue, in the church, in the mosque, in the art museum, or in a philharmonic concert, did not concern society. That was his [own] private affair.” (Quoted in “Zion & the Jewish National Idea”, in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, 1970 PB, p.185)

Altneuland was written both for Jews and non-Jews: Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[24] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he mentioned in his diary he

“When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us”, “The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl”, vol. 1 (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), pp. 88, 90 (hereafter Herzl diaries.

Herzl’s draft of a charter for a Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) gave the JOLC the right to obtain land in Palestine by giving its owners comparable land elsewhere in the Ottoman empire.

The name of Tel Aviv is the title given to the Hebrew translation of Altneuland by the translator, Nahum Sokolow. This name, which comes from Ezekiel 3:15, means tell— an ancient mound formed when a town is built on its own debris for thousands of years— of spring. The name was later applied to the new town built outside of Jaffa, which went on to become Tel Aviv-Yafo the second-largest city in Israel. The nearby city to the north, Herzlia, was named in honor of Herzl.

Ted im afraid you allow your prejudice of Muslims cloud your judgement – and you do sound like an Islamaphobe. i understand you are from Jewish backgrounds but surely you can see beyond those rhetorics? Didnt you guys, muslims and jews share a close history until politics or the the palestine issue get in the way??? Us in europe did you a bad turn i agree from above but whats with the hostilities between u guys and them?

TFTG, Interesting views. But displacement of a settled people like the Palestinians in the name of Jews and the Jewish religion using the pretext of Zionism reflects nothing more than their planned expulsion from this so called Jewish home of Israel which has caused the world more misery than a homeland seized from a helpless people.

“How Should the Labour Party Respond to Islamists”
Tonight 6pm, House of Commons!
Tower Hamlets’ very own Jim Fitzpatrick and Rachael Saunders, speakers at this event.
Will they debate their NEC dossier with Hazel Blears, Mehdi Hasan etc?

Did Rachael and Jim’s Dodgy Dossier get an airing last night at this event?

Did you attend Ted? And if the Cordoba Foundation is not to be trusted, what are your feelings on the Quilliam Foundation who set up this event?

The ‘HOW SHOULD THE LABOUR PARTY RESPOND TO ISLAMISTS?’ Quilliam/Progress event cited the recent Tower Hamlets mayoral election as the basis for this ‘debate’ so perhaps the infamous dossier of allegations did get another airing. It was chaired by TH Councillor Rachael Saunders…with local MP Jim Fitzpatrick, David Edgar, Graham Taylor…